2016年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_G_5页_238kb

G-20 Reforms of the International Monetary System: An Evaluation Summary

Core Content

This policy brief evaluates the G-20's efforts to reform the International Monetary System (IMS) at the Cannes summit in 2011, highlighting both the progress made and the significant shortcomings in achieving concrete outcomes. The author, Edwin M. Truman, outlines the five key elements of the IMS reform agenda: surveillance of the global economy and financial system, lender-of-last-resort mechanisms, management of global capital flows, reserve assets and reserve currencies, and IMS governance.

Main Points

1. Surveillance of the Global Economy and Financial System

• The G-20 focused on procedural improvements rather than substantive policy commitments.
• Key outcomes include:
  • Continuation of IMF reports on spillovers from large economies.
  • Multilateral surveillance reports emphasizing external imbalances.
  • A more formal framework for integrating bilateral and multilateral surveillance activities.
• Disappointment: No new policy commitments were made, and the MAP (Mutual Assessment Process) did not demonstrate collective responsibility for SSBG (Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth).
• The G-20 leaders endorsed the publication of exchange-rate assessments only when deemed "appropriate," falling short of the previously proposed commitment by IMF Managing Director Lagarde.

2. Lender-of-Last-Resort Mechanisms

• The G-20 made minimal changes to the existing system, with only a new IMF Precautionary and Liquidity Line (PLL) being proposed.
• The PLL is intended for countries with strong policies and fundamentals, making it unlikely to be used for Italy or Spain.
• Disappointment: The G-20 failed to create a robust framework for cooperation between the IMF and regional financial arrangements.
• The focus was on short-term needs, and long-term reforms such as SDR (Special Drawing Rights) allocation were left unresolved.

3. Management of Global Capital Flows

• The G-20 codified an emerging consensus on managing capital flows, emphasizing the need for transparency, countercyclical measures, and the importance of macroeconomic policies.
• The conclusions are non-binding but provide useful guidance.
• Criticism: The rationale for promoting local currency bond markets is overstated, and the benefits to the IMS are debatable.
• The G-20 achieved the most progress on this element, as it managed to establish a coherent framework for capital flow management.

4. Reserve Assets and Reserve Currencies

• The G-20 acknowledged the current role of national currencies, particularly the US dollar, but did not make significant changes.
• The focus was on SDR as a potential replacement for the dollar, though no substantial progress was made.
• Disappointment: There were no substantive achievements on reserve assets or currencies. The G-20 promised to revisit the issue in 2015, but no binding commitments were made.
• The inclusion of the Chinese yuan in the SDR basket was implicitly acknowledged, but China did not agree to additional liberalization measures in exchange.

5. IMS Governance

• The G-20 reaffirmed commitments to IMF quota and governance reforms agreed in Seoul in 2010, aiming for implementation by the fall of 2012.
• The declaration called for an "appropriate transition toward an IMS which better reflects the increased weight of emerging market economies."
• Disappointment: No new governance structures or reforms were introduced. The focus remained on the future organization of the G-20 itself.

Key Information

• The G-20's reform agenda was overshadowed by the European financial crisis, which limited the scope and impact of their discussions.
• The G-20 achieved some procedural improvements but lacked concrete policy commitments in most areas.
• The main accomplishments were in capital flow management, where a coherent framework was established.
• The role of SDR and the governance of the IMF were discussed but not substantially advanced.
• The author suggests that the G-20 should focus on more pressing issues, such as limiting the accumulation of international reserves, rather than pursuing incremental reforms.

Conclusion

Overall, the G-20's efforts in Cannes to reform the IMS were limited and largely symbolic. While some progress was made in codifying principles and frameworks, there were no major substantive achievements. The reform agenda was hindered by the European crisis and the lack of binding commitments, leaving the IMS in a state of slow evolution rather than meaningful transformation.